Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
msc
sage
Reged: 08/10/06
Posts: 263
|
|
It seems, these 141mm Miyauchi big Binocs offer a lot, vs. the Fuji 150mm binocs....
Sorry, removed pix as per Edz
Advantages as I see them are.....two 141mm APO objectives, interchangeable EP's, finder scope, 45 degree diag., fork and tripod, all in a short, fast 4.4 focal length, porro prism correction, travel freindly, and relatively light weight considering its objective size. The price of $12k for all of the above seems a bargain next to the Fuji's. Yet, I see very little information in terms of sales literature or reviews?
It would cost much more than this to jury rig two 125mm scopes together, as a few telescope makers do...
It seems at these price tags, everyone just goes Fujinon 25x150? Is it possible the gains over 100mm are not enough to push people into the much higer price 141 or 150mm binoc range? Any feedback or links?
TYIA
Edited by msc (08/20/06 02:54 PM)
|
Erik D
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 2554
Loc: Central New Jersey, USA
|
|
Miyauchi 25X141
Erik D
|
edwincjones
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/10/04
Posts: 4423
|
|
The fuji 25x150MT is about $6000, 2000 more for mount from UA, so it is still cheaper.
The fujinon has a better reputation for solid construction and keeping collination.
CA is not that much different between my 25x150s and miyauchi 20x100 fl (there-but the view is sharper in the milyauchi)
Are they still making the 141? I saw an announcement that they are no longer making the florite lens.
That said, you do get a lot with the Miyauchi 141 when you consider APO, 45*, 28# instead of 41, with mount and finderscope included; but few are willing to pay $8K+ for binoculars. I know 3-4 with the 150s, but the only 141 I have ever heard of was one at bigbinoculars.com a few years ago that was reviewed here on loan.
BUT THE VIEW IS WORTH IT.
edj
--------------------
n w arkansas
Binocular, Solar, General Amateur Astronomy
|
edwincjones
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/10/04
Posts: 4423
|
|
If you go for the Funjnon 25x150 ED with 45* eps, then you are talking $16000 plus mount.
I got my miyauchis first, the the big fujis-if I had it to do over I would consider the 141s.
edj
--------------------
n w arkansas
Binocular, Solar, General Amateur Astronomy
|
Rick
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/12/05
Posts: 2574
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
|
I had a peek at M7 thru the Miyauchi 141 last night at the Mt Fuji star party. It was OK 
clear skies,
Rick
--------------------
www.japanastro.com
|
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
Reged: 04/07/05
Posts: 14686
Loc: Hurricane Alley
|
|
Somebody kindly send me a unit, so I can "review" it.
MikeG
--------------------
Michael Gilmer - Member of the Meteoritical Society & Collector of Falling Stars.
Galactic Stone & Ironworks - Buy/Sell/Trade Meteorites, Moon Rocks, Mars Rocks, & 35 different falls and types!
|
edwincjones
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/10/04
Posts: 4423
|
|
Rick,
You have a pair of 141s, or have at least seem them?
Tell us about them, please. Few have ever seen them, I think.
edj
--------------------
n w arkansas
Binocular, Solar, General Amateur Astronomy
|
msc
sage
Reged: 08/10/06
Posts: 263
|
|
From the linked thread above by Erik, it seems the Galaxy 141's only shortcoming is color issues, as a result of the super fast speed of the scopes. Of course, I am sure this is a tradeoff the maker understands and accepted to fill a market void. I guess there is no getting around this... you want a short package, there is a color price that must be paid.....but the rest of the package is still tough to beat IMO. Tough call...
The other option which is starting to look good is Joe C's tandem scopes... the only issue I have there is, to attain two 125mm scopes (which is still significantly less apt. than the 141's) you are into some serious dough, size and weight. Unless there is some short tube 125's I am not aware of. I asked Joe about the Borgs 125's, but he no longer uses them, objectives are below par, at which case he suggest a pair of Chinese made binocs.
Any thoughts? I realize a 125 tandem will not be as compact as the Galaxy's, but I was trying to squeeze out more apt. than 100mm tandem. As with 100mm tandem, I am nearing the convience of off-the-shelf astro binocs.
Any 100mm binocs that use 1.25" EP's of your choice?
|
msc
sage
Reged: 08/10/06
Posts: 263
|
|
One more comment.... Comapring the Fuji 25x150's MT to tandem 150 bincoscopes, now, the Fuji seem like a real bargain.
My biggest problem with the Fuji MT's..... is the inability to use 45 degree EP. (as Ed points out, $6k step up for 45 deg) I can see everytime you adjust the view, you must change chair position, neck position, etc. to accomodate the wide swings of the straight EP's. Maybe a really good mount system will help compensate for the lack of 45's? Any suggestions on a mount that helps resovle these issues? I was surprised to read the Fuji reviews where a user wasn't bothered so much by the lack of 45's.... for some reason, I think it would annoy me...
The ability to use existing EP's with tandem scopes is still very appealling also....but to use 150mm apt in tandem scopes....well, all of sudden the Fuji 25x150 MT's appear small, lightweight and dirt cheap :-)
I can not find information regarding the glass used in the Fuji? Is this a secret?
|
edwincjones
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/10/04
Posts: 4423
|
|
bigbinoculars.com has their BT100s with interchangeable 1.25 eps.
When you start mounting the large premium refractors, the size, cost, greatly excedes one with a binoviewer.
edj
--------------------
n w arkansas
Binocular, Solar, General Amateur Astronomy
|
msc
sage
Reged: 08/10/06
Posts: 263
|
|
Ed, fully agreed, the BT-100's do seem sweet for 100mm apt. binocs. Lots of benefits, vs. tandem 100's for sure, smaller, less weight, a lot less cost, with 45's and interchangeable EP's....
they hit a sweet spot indeed, assuming the optics are at least good.... its nice they make the full kit, with fork n pod.
I am trying to collect my thoughts on this subject and would like to air my thinking out loud here, I open to suggestions, I am an amateur indeed, but desire the biggest bank for the buck....
I would like to use dual eye viewing for astronomy, I just love the dual eye view vs. single eye viewing, so this now comes down to BV/scope vs. Binocs (which tandem scopes fall into)
I would put much more emphasizes on light gathering vs. potential magnification, maybe 2:1, therefore, as I see it....
Since I am comparing BV/Scope and Binoc, the BV now loose at least half the light of Binocs. I will say 55% as there is mirrors to contend with in addition to the beam splitter.
So using the Fuji MT's as a starting point, to match their light gathering ability, 150/.45 = 333mm apt. Scope with BV. Lets face it, 333 mm Scope, that's not in the cards here...... This is quite compelling case for the Fuji's (or any ~150mm tandems)
Other than the 141's, it seems the binoc. falloff goes right to 100mm objectives. So 100/.45 = 222mm apt Scope w/BV, for light gathering ability. And lets face it again, a scope that big and expensive is not in the cards.
So both binocs offer tremendous value compared to single BV/Scope alternatives, asssuming you are chasing more light gathering vs. max. magnfication.
So my question to those more experienced is..... what opens up when star gazing with the 150mm binocs that you do NOT see with the 100mm binocs? I am trying to get a feel if the added size, weight, cost, lack of 45's, of the MT's are really justified by the added views one can see with the huge objectives ?
TYIA
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Since I am comparing BV/Scope and Binoc, the BV now loose at least half the light of Binocs. I will say 55% as there is mirrors to contend with in addition to the beam splitter.
So using the Fuji MT's as a starting point, to match their light gathering ability, 150/.45 = 333mm apt. Scope with BV. Lets face it, 333 mm Scope, that's not in the cards here...... This is quite compelling case for the Fuji's (or any ~150mm tandems)
Other than the 141's, it seems the binoc. falloff goes right to 100mm objectives. So 100/.45 = 222mm apt Scope w/BV, for light gathering ability. And lets face it again, a scope that big and expensive is not in the cards.
Sorry, that assumption you used for light comparison is incorrect.
A 212mm (not 333mm) scope with binoviewer would provide light equal to a 150mm binocular.
A 141mm (not 222mm) scope with binoviewer would provide light equal to a 100mm binocular.
That 333mm scope with BV (even throwing away 10% of the light) would be the equivalent of a 265mm binocular.
The proper comparison is:
binocular 150mm (all nominal)
area = 150x150 = 22500
divide area of light to two eyes
not necessary, two apertures provided
apply binocular summation
22500 x 1.4 = 31500
convert from effective area back to dia
sq rt 31500 = 177mm
A 150mm binocular provides the binocular summation light equivalent of a 177mm scope to one eye.
scope (all nominal)
area = 212 x 212 = 44944
divide area of light to two eyes
44944 / 2 = 22472
apply binocular summation
22472 x 1.4 = 31460
convert from effective area back to dia
sq rt 31460 = 177mm
A 212mm scope with binoviewer provides the binocular summation light equivalent of a 177mm scope to one eye.
See the discussions here for a more complete explanation
Binocular Vision Summation
edz
|
Rick
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/12/05
Posts: 2574
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
|
|
Quote:
Rick,
You have a pair of 141s, or have at least seem them?
Tell us about them, please. Few have ever seen them, I think.
edj
No, I just took a peek at M7 through a pair. The owner did not set them up until after dark so I couldn't get a good look at the bino itself other than to think it was smaller than I thought it would be from the pics I'd seen. There was a line of people behind me so I couldn't really evaluate the optics or even re-focus. Suffice to say, the view really wasn't as jaw-dropping as their price!
Also, looked through a big Fuji set up next to it and I didn't think it was anything special either.
Now the view through the cheapie 12" dob....whoa baby!
cheers,
Rick
--------------------
www.japanastro.com
|
msc
sage
Reged: 08/10/06
Posts: 263
|
|
Kudos Ed, I tripped myself up without even realizing it......
yep, its all about apt area, which is not linear with light loss % ' s
Makes BV'ers more attractive. I am completly sold on BV during daytime use, but I am wrestling with the astro differences...
|
msc
sage
Reged: 08/10/06
Posts: 263
|
|
BTW, any other alternative suggestions on dual eye viewing light buckets?
Is it true once you leave the refractor category, the view is degraded...and the star gazing is not as appealing?
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 1811
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I would like to use dual eye viewing for astronomy, I just love the dual eye view vs. single eye viewing, so this now comes down to BV/scope vs. Binocs (which tandem scopes fall into)
I thought long and hard about this same issue as I really enjoy viewing through large binoculars and I had the funds to cover any bino. But there is a point at which you have to perform a sanity check when you are looking at $12.5k. In my case, I realized that I could get the Saturn III's and still have $9.5k left over after setting up a good mount for the Saturn III's. That's more than enough to get a 15" Obsession with Servocat and a pair of Denk II's which will certainly provide a LOT Deeper DSO viewing while still binoviewing. Sure, a 15" Dob's a lot less convenient, but it will also provide spectactular views of objects that are completely beyond the reach of the Galaxy's. And the Saturn III's are a LOT MORE convenient than the Galaxy's as they are less than 1/2 the weight and have the option for higher magnification. All in all, I couldn't see the Galaxy's as providing a good price/utility ratio. And the Fujinons are a lot heavier. I think if you are absolutely hard set on a really large pair of binoculars and have the funds available, the Galaxy's are a good deal - the 45° EP's and lower weight are a plus, and the 10mm difference in aperture (vs. the Fujinons) is probably unnoticeable except in a protracted side-by-side evaluation.
Weight and transportability are very important - I would far rather have my 18x50 IS Canon's at a truly dark 7th+ mag site, than the Galaxy's at a site that was struggling to reach 5th magnitude. And that's another sanity check - buy the Saturn III's at $2.5k and you have a budget of $1,000/yr. for ten years to travel to ultra-dark skies where they might outperform the Galaxy's where you are located currently located. 
--------------------
|
edwincjones
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/10/04
Posts: 4423
|
|
25x150s and 25x141s are to binoculars
what 24" plus dobs are to telescopes
-both are the ultimate, but also big, user unfriendly, and expensive
you should not go from an 8" to a 30" scope, nor should you go to 141-150mm without spending some time with a 100mm (</>) binoculars to see if you really enjoy/use them enough to justify getting/living with the ultimate
when you get into the big rigs, binoviewers have have many advantages for 2 eyed viewing
I had 100mm binocs for several years before the big fujis, I also use a binoviewer with scopes
edj
--------------------
n w arkansas
Binocular, Solar, General Amateur Astronomy
Edited by edwincjones (08/20/06 07:44 PM)
|
msc
sage
Reged: 08/10/06
Posts: 263
|
|
> I thought long and hard about this same issue as I really enjoy viewing through large binoculars and I had the funds to cover any bino. But there is a point at which you have to perform a sanity check when you are looking at $12.5k.
Ahhhh, if we all performed sanity checks before buying optics, scope makers would be bankrupt by now ! :-)
> All in all, I couldn't see the Galaxy's as providing a good price/utility ratio.
good analysis - makes perfect sense....
> And the Fujinons are a lot heavier. I think if you are absolutely hard set on a really large pair of binoculars and have the funds available, the Galaxy's are a good deal - the 45° EP's and lower weight are a plus, and the 10mm difference in aperture (vs. the Fujinons) is probably unnoticeable except in a protracted side-by-side evaluation.
Agreed, but I am open to any dual eye viewing light bucket.....
Weight and transportability are very important - I would far rather have my 18x50 IS Canon's at a truly dark 7th+ mag site, than the Galaxy's at a site that was struggling to reach 5th magnitude. And that's another sanity check - buy the Saturn III's at $2.5k and you have a budget of $1,000/yr. for ten years to travel to ultra-dark skies where they might outperform the Galaxy's where you are located currently located.
Yep, this is all part of the equation. I actually only have to travel 10 miles to super dark areas, so that is not an issue.... waiting for the right sky, well, that never changes. I like this analogy though.... your point is, spend less, view less often, i.e. during perfect seeing nights and the low cost alternatives will match the high cost units when seeing is not as good.... This makes me wonder if a 210 Tak Mewlon with Bino viewer is not a good compromise. But I don't have enough experience to know the difference in the views. And the liklihood of my finding two side by side is slim to none....always making decisions on the dark on these items... thank God for these forums, at least we have some means to assist each other for low volume astro gear...
Ed, good point, and I have consisdered this also.... low cost 100mm binocs provide a step ladder into the bigger league.... try before you buy, as you won't loose much on the lower priced binocs, consider the huge price differential to begin with...
I am curious of your thoughts on the BV with 210 Mewlon? I never used reflectors before....
|
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
Reged: 04/07/05
Posts: 14686
Loc: Hurricane Alley
|
|
There are some 125mm binoscopes floating around out there as well, including the Vixen.
Clear dark skies...
MikeG
--------------------
Michael Gilmer - Member of the Meteoritical Society & Collector of Falling Stars.
Galactic Stone & Ironworks - Buy/Sell/Trade Meteorites, Moon Rocks, Mars Rocks, & 35 different falls and types!
|
Joad
Wordsmith
Reged: 03/22/05
Posts: 11919
|
|
Lots and lots and lots of such good commentary here. I hope I can add a little bit. While I, too, drool over such binos as the big Fujis and the Galaxy, my experience with the Oberwerk 45° 100mm BT (with 1.25" interchangeable eps) is that they are an extraordinary value. In dark skies (I do all my viewing in the region of Mt. Pinos), the low power views (especially of the summer Milky Way from Cassiopeia through Cygnus down through Sagittarius) are simply breath-taking. I've only looked through a bigger bino once (150mm homebuilt), but it wasn't much different. 100mm is plenty of aperture for low power wide field viewing.
One needs a telescope for genuinely high magnification, but if you go the route of any kind of cadioptric, you are looking at a restricted field of view, that many binoviewers will restrict even more. My point is that binoviewer viewing and binocular viewing are two different things. If you want wide field sweeping views: you want a binocular. If you want to zoom in with high power with two eyes, you want a binoviewer with a scope. If you want those binoviewed views to be widefield, you need a fast scope and an expensive binoviewer.
If money is no object, get multiple scopes and experiment. But, dollar for dollar, I think you can't beat the Oberwerk BT, with a decent telescope (doesn't have to be expensive) to supplement it when you want to look up close.
|
|
5 registered and 23 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1849
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 